I dislike subsidies unless the subsidies are for a specific purpose and that is what they are linked to. So encouraging game development in the UK creates jobs, but why does a game company get a subsidy for creating 20 jobs and another company in another industry not get a subsidy for creating 20 jobs?

The justification for their receiving some of MY money is for creating 20 more jobs and both have achieved it, so I fail to see why one should be favoured over the other. It's arbitrary and does nothing more than incite a battle of subsidies with UK and Canada trying to outdo each other on how much money they can throw at a corporation and their private shareholders.

That said, I'm not sure how far the subsidy had progressed and it is wrong to promise one thing, allow people to base decisions on that and then go and sweep it out from under them. If some companies have gone ahead and made investments with the subsidies playing a significant part of their decision they can rightfully consider themselves cheated.